A day before scheduled Hill hearings on indecency today (Wed.), the FCC proposed nearly $800,000 in fines against Clear Channel and Young Bcstg. for apparent violations of indecency rules. Clear Channel faces the statutory maximum forfeiture of $27,500 for each of 26 apparent indecency violations, totaling $755,000, for airing indecent material over several broadcast stations during several days, the FCC said.

Equipment makers in filings late Fri. suggested ways the FCC could tweak some of its rules for unlicensed devices. Several raised concerns that while Part 15 regulations had been successful so far, growing deployments of Wi-Fi and other technologies could require future changes. While supporting the broad outlines of the FCC’s proposed streamlining, some companies differed on details, including whether “etiquette” rules were needed for unlicensed devices.

Equipment-makers, in comments filed late Fri., suggested ways the FCC could tweak parts of its rules for unlicensed devices, with several raising concerns that while Part 15 regulations been successful so far, growing deployments of Wi-Fi and other technologies could require future changes. While supporting the broad outlines of the streamlining in an FCC proposal, some companies differed on the details, including whether “etiquette” rules are needed for unlicensed devices.

With Comrs. Copps and Adelstein dissenting and Comr. Martin concurring, the FCC announced late last week expiration of the Sec. 272 separate affiliate requirement for SBC in Kan. and Okla. Sec. 272 of the Telecom Act requires a Bell company to provide in-region long distance service through a separate affiliate for 3 years after obtaining Commission approval to do so, unless the FCC extends that period. SBC was awarded Sec. 271 authorization in Kan. and Okla. Jan. 22, 2001. In a joint statement, Copps and Adelstein said they were “troubled” that the Commission’s decision wasn’t supported by analysis of either state market. “The Commission… does nothing here to determine whether there is a continuing need for these safeguards in either Kansas or Oklahoma,” they said. “This is unfortunate.” The FCC last year made a similar announcement about the N.Y. and Tex. separate affiliates for SBC (CD July 3 p9). “Just as we were troubled by these earlier failures to analyze the continuing need for Section 272 safeguards, we are troubled here,” Copps and Adelstein said: “As before, we are left wondering how the Commission can justify sunset while it leaves unresolved the development of alternative safeguards in its performance measurements docket.” They also expressed concern about the Commission’s having moved forward with its decision, leaving incomplete its proposed rulemaking on carrier classification following the Sec. 272 sunset. Comr. Martin expressed concerns that the FCC allowed the Sec. 272 requirements to sunset through a public notice rather than an order responding to questions raised on the record: “I would have preferred that we affirmatively set forth, in a separate Commission order, our analysis and justification for granting the relief… rather than remain silent.”

On January 22, 2004, the Senate passed the conference report for H.R. 2673, the fiscal year (FY) 2004 omnibus appropriations bill for a number of federal government departments and agencies, by a vote of 65 to 28.

Bell companies, taking a view different from wireless carriers, urged the FCC to not impose costly technical solutions to ease wireless-to-wireline number porting in cases in which there was a mismatch between the rate center associated with a wireless number and the one in which a wireline operator would serve the customer. Companies filed FCC comments this week on a further notice on wireless local number portability (LNP) issues. As for whether wireline companies should complete intermodal ports in time periods closer to those of wireless carriers, several companies urged the FCC to keep the existing interval required for wireline companies.

A group of utilities urged the FCC to reject a proposed reconfiguration plan by Nextel and others to reduce interference at 800 MHz. The utilities last week objected to the extent the plan, also backed by public safety and certain private wireless groups, would bar cellularized systems below 861 MHz, calling it an “arbitrary” definition. In place of technology bans, the companies recommended better-defined coordination and technical requirements to prevent interference. As an example, they said the FCC could adopt out-of-band emission limits applicable to digital systems. The utilities -- American Electric Power, Cinergy, Consumers Energy and Entergy -- also raised concerns about the “consensus plan’s” potential freeze on licensing while bands were realigned and about the public safety set-aside of “greenspace” spectrum for 5 years. They said utility radio systems need a chance to expand to meet service and coverage needs, including new offerings such as mobile data. If the Commission decides on a rebanding approach for 800 MHz, the utilities said there shouldn’t be a freeze on licensing, or it should be in place just long enough to design a channel- mapping plan for each region. Nextel, the Assn. of Public Safety Communications Officials and others have backed an 800 MHz plan that would involve reconfiguring spectrum at 700, 800 and 900 MHz, including a swap that would give Nextel spectrum at 1.9 GHz in exchange for licenses it would give up elsewhere. The utilities said they backed a compromise endorsed by CTIA and others that would rely on best practices and other mitigation techniques, rather than spectrum swaps. The utilities also argued against an additional set-aside of spectrum for public safety at 800 MHz unless the eligibility included “public safety radio services” under Sec. 309(j) of the Communications Act. That would include private internal radio services used to protect life and health and not made commercially available, as well as “traditional” public safety offerings.

Vigorous questioning in an oral argument pointed to the relevance of affidavits in an appeal brought by Advanced Communications Corp. (ACC) against the FCC. In a new phase of a case that spans nearly a decade, ACC asked the U.S. Appeals Court, D.C. to reverse a decision by the FCC not to reconsider a previous decision revoking the company’s DBS licenses in light of sworn affidavits from ex-commissioners. Judges Merrick Garland, Judith Rogers and Stephen Williams heard oral arguments Fri. Attorneys for EchoStar participated as intervenors on behalf of the FCC.

Congress isn’t expected to pass comprehensive legislation on communications issues this session, many sources said, but that doesn’t mean lawmakers won’t be busy in the communications realm. Most sources provided a laundry list of issues that would get at least some attention from lawmakers who return today (Tues.) for the 2nd session of the 108th Congress. While no large-scale bills are expected, Congress could pass legislation this year to restrict broadcast ownership, fund enhanced 911 (E911) and spectrum relocation, and renew the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act (SHVIA). But there’s likely to be a lot of talk on the Hill about communications issues, as VoIP, universal service fund (USF), broadcast decency and cable rates.

With thousands of parents and some members of Congress bearing down on him, FCC Chmn. Powell sent a draft proposal to his fellow commissioners that would reverse an earlier ruling on the use of the F-word on TV. The initial ruling by the FCC Enforcement Bureau last year came under withering criticism from a variety of quarters, most vocally from the Parents TV Council (PTC), because the decision essentially allowed the F-word’s use as long as it was as an adjective. Agency sources said Powell in all likelihood would receive unanimous support for the part of the draft that would deem it unacceptable for the F-word to be broadcast from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., when children might be watching, and when the courts have said the agency’s indecency rules apply.